32 Years of Roe v. Wade

Here is an update on the Democracy Cell I belong to. Andrea, Amy, Patti F - consider attending the retreat if you can (I don't know where or when it is but plan to schedule my life around it even if it means taking vacation time), if you are interested. The ideas could be used anywhere in the state & that is the ultimate goal anyway.
I am going to invite a few local others that I think would be interested.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We had a wonderful, productive gathering on January 12th! As those of you at the meeting recall, we outlined two new projects and a book/movie/discussion group. Project A is working to improve the infrastructure of the State Democratic Party and Project B is to organize a grass roots effort to promote uniform voting across the state.

Those of us at the meeting signed up according to our interests. We talked about needing to identify what organizational structure should be
in place in the state of Washington prior to the 2006 election.

After some discussion we believe that the next step should be a retreat with facilitation to outline a strategic plan for these efforts. We
believe that the retreat should be for both projects A & B together and we want to encourage anyone who could not come to the reunion on the
12th of Jan to come to the retreat if you are interested.

We are working now to identify a facilitator for this retreat. We will be back in touch with you shortly with some proposed dates in March for
the retreat and welcome any thoughts you may have regarding this plan.

The book/movie/discussion group will be working on a date for the first meeting in the near future.

We now have an email address-book set up with the information you gave us on Jan 12th. We hope to keep in communication with all of you, but
you should email us with thoughts as well. This address book will allow us to work on setting meeting dates for our future work together.

Sandy posted the Dem Party Radio Address on LUTD. It's got some good talking points about SS:

Democratic Hispanic Radio Address
22 January 2005

In the fight against the dismantling of Social Security, it's important to remember how much more of an impact the loss of this program will have on minority families. Good for Congressman Cuellar for giving this important fact the attention it deserves.

"Good morning. I am Congressman Henry Cuellar from Texas.

"This week President Bush was sworn in to office for a second term and he presented his agenda for the next four years.

"The President's agenda is very ambitious. Democrats will work with the President in areas where we can improve the lives of Hispanics and all Americans. However, Democrats will continue to defend working families to prevent a push for the radical conservative agenda.

More: http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=254

Also on LUTD, Nancy Pelosi's statment about Roe vs. Wade:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=253

I'm a little disheartened about the lack of conversation about the Christian right stepping up their assault on Roe vs. Wade. Thanks for this great post Suz!

Not to bad of an article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/weekinreview/23stol.html
For Kerry, a Strategic Return to the Limelight
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: January 23, 2005

ASHINGTON — A new old face popped up in the Capitol last week, just in time for President Bush's second inauguration. John Kerry was back.

"In kind of a strange way, I think it was smart to step out on the week that Bush was stepping out," said Steve Jarding, a Democratic strategist. "He is letting people know that he's going to be in Bush's face every step of the way, and if you are John Kerry, that is exactly where you want to be."

Posted by: florida dem at January 23, 2005 12:04 AM

Damn correct Steve. I hope other Dem congress folks grow some nads.

We aren't going anywhere...

“Alchemy is the purported science of turning base metals into gold. It does not exist. Political alchemy is the ability to turn hard failures into gossamer triumphs. It does exist. The inauguration of George W. Bush for a second term proves it.”
 
Source:  Washington Post, Richard Cohen, “Fool’s Gold”.

The following quote by David Broder speaks volume about Bush and Iraq.  Too bad it took over 1,300 American deaths for some people to recognize the point Broder made.
 
Excerpt from Broder’s Washington Post Op Ed, “What Lies Ahead for Bush”:
 
Iraq is a bleeding wound on his presidency, a war that growing majorities of Americans have joined the rest of the world in judging a mistake. The future of Iraq is less and less in America's hands. Success in removing Saddam Hussein has been followed by failure to stabilize postwar Iraq. The fate of that country will increasingly be settled by combat and political struggles among various factions, which agree only on their desire to end the American occupation. As the president put it in an interview with The Post last week, "Success in Iraq will depend upon the Iraqis defeating the enemy."
 

REPOST FROM BOTTOM OF PREVIOUS THREAD:

Posted by: Cyrano at January 22, 2005 10:43 PM

Oh Cyrano, Cyrano......Thou dost sound so much like a brotha I know, love and respect..........

Abortion. Not condemning anybody. A PERSONAL decision, that I, out of LUCK, never had to make. That wasn't my point. (I ran around the block a couple of times in my day, and at that time, if I had been met with that decision, I don't know what I would have decided to do.) Believe me, nobody can judge anybody until they have marched a mile in their moccasins. Or danced, in my case. With a margarita in my hand, and guacamole in my hair till 5 in the morning dancing til they shut the place down. I would do that part of the mile again, it was fun. Which leads me to say, I know God (whatever anybody wants to call Him/Her etc.) is bigger than most people give "Him et.al" credit for. I appreciate your information on Diety and Buddhism and Hindus. It is interesting. I have heard some teaching that says that the bible is just a small part of what God can reveal to us. A small fraction. I think some of that is very true. The power of thought, positive thoughts and speech having energy and all that. And I believe that. (That, by the way, IS in the bible). I hope someday you will tell me more. What is the name of the church that the Diety people attend? Is it the one that Tom Cruise attends, Science something? Unity?

Listen to me here Cyrano. When questioned in detail by the Zogby poll I was asked what two things I believed strongly enough in to fight and possibly die over. I said "the right to live and let live", and "civil liberties". That did not come from a judgemental, controlling mind. Decisions aren't real for anybody until and unless they are made internally. By the person,
because he wants to.

My point was not abortion is bad don't do it, abortion is good so do it. My point was abortion is a polarizing issue. I personally think it is THE polarizing issue. We were tossing around one way of perhaps neutralizing it.

I refuse to get defensive about Christianity. At least for tonight. My personal belief in a particular religion is based on things that are real to me. Pea headed, narrow minded, or whatever you see it as, it has taken a big commitment from me; cost me something. In order to make that decision and stick with it it had to meet my standard of truth. And it did. Not because I am a brainless twit, because I researched it, and it is real to me. And it is worth it to me. Do I want to tell everybody to make the same decision? That isn't why I am here and come here. I can go rub elbows with the religious right and play the games and say the right things and get all good and confirmed any time I want. The last thing I want to do here is don the robes and be all Miss Judge. I am not Billy Graham and this isn't the Inspiration Channel. (Wait...Maybe it is!) That isn't what IT is ALL about, and it is not what THIS is all about.

Nite Cyrano.

What was wrong with the term Reproductive Rights?

Personal, medical, social, cultural, spiritual - whatever.

I always liked the sign I saw, "Keep your Bible off my Body."

& also "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Then remember the old "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle?"

The Shadow President

While others in his shoes have retreated from the public eye, John Kerry still has a job to do in the Senate. He could shrink back from the fray and work quietly for a time until the heat dies down from what has been perhaps the most divisive election in history, but John Kerry has decided to leap into the fire and take a stand.

In a story in tomorrow’s N.Y. Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg suggests that Kerry is setting “himself up as a kind of shadow president, a leader to the nearly 58 million Americans who voted for him.” I have heard this echoed around the internet for the past few weeks by the loyal Kerry supporters who believe that Kerry will rise above the fray and take hold of the Democratic Party in this fight against the Bush administration.

More: http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=255

DiAnne,

I went in and read your article by Greg Palast last night. He was also on C-Span1 for quite awhile last night. I signed up on his email list.
He looks pretty sharp, I like the way his mind works. Pretty intelligent guy. Do you read much of his stuff? Is he an Indy? Sounded like he took a couple swipes at the Dems.

Just sent to the Bushwacker:

Dear President Bush,

As an unabashedly spiritual American, I take quite seriously the challenge of reducing the number of abortions that occur in this country. This is why
I support expanded access to contraception and information on family planning. While I consider abortion a grave act, I do not consider it murder - nor do I necessarily even consider it a sin. Following Jesus' lead, as proscribed in the Gospels, I choose to judge not, and instead leave the ultimate question of guilt or innocence in this matter to a court higher than any of this earth. If only more of the alleged Christians who
supported you in the recent Presidential election would spend more of their time following Jesus' actual teachings, and less time improvising - while scandalously imagining that they can even vaguely understand the will of a God who is clearly beyond all human understanding.

Mr. President, you ran in 2000 saying you wanted to be a uniter, not a divider. Well, if you attempt to pack the Supreme Court with "strict constructionist" judges (like Chief Justice Roger Taney, who presided over the Dredd Scott decision) who represent only the views of conservative Americans on the issue of abortion, then I'm afraid that "divider" will unquestionably be your legacy. I'm afraid that talk of secession in the
Blue States will increase exponentially, and lead to a likely Constitutional crisis in the years to come. The right of a woman to choose if and when she will bear a child is both settled law and sacred for us, as sacred as the right of every man and woman to be free. If you tamper with this understanding, I fear that you may be setting in motion events of an historic nature. You could be forever known as the President who captured Saddam Hussein but lost the Blue States.

Sincerely yours,

You could be forever known as the President who captured Saddam Hussein but lost the Blue States.

Sincerely yours,

Posted by: Cyrano at January 23, 2005 01:43 AM

???

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 23, 2005 12:53 AM

I support your right to understand God as you know him, her or it. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about.

Deity (as you phrase it, it is actually Deism) has nothing to do with Tom Cruise or Scientology. Deism was an important philosophical/religious view during The Enlightenment, and it best describes the religious views of Founders and Framers like Franklin, Jefferson and Paine, and possibly Washington. I present this information so that we are better able to argue our case in the court of public opinion - especially in response to the argument that America was meant to be a Christian nation. And for the record, I grew up a Catholic, attended both Catholic grammer schools and a Jesuit University.

As for abortion being a divisive issue, that may be true - but I am not walking away from either a woman's right to choose or the rights of Gay Americans, for that matter. People's rights are not negotiable, not in The Year Of Our Lord 2005. We're just going to have to find another route to winning this war.

Posted by: DiAnne at January 22, 2005 11:55 PM

DiAnne, when I clicked on your name to email you, I was directed to The Stranger! Delightful, but not what I was expecting.

I think the retreat is a great idea and I'd like to attend. Do you think others from down here could come? We're a small group and could use the inspiration and fellowship.

I have a ton of ideas from our little group, and one big idea, and I keep promising to share it here but it's all in longhand and I have not gotten around to typing it up. I promise, tomorrow I will.

This is for Oncall who posted on the last thread his concerns for the future of abortion rights.

We aren't talking about giving in. We're talking about reframing. I've said this before, I'll say it again...

We need to get away from calling it "a woman's right" since anti-abortionists believe that the undeveloped child has the same rights as a woman, and is more innocent and helpless and therefore needs protecting, unlike the harlot who is looking to shirk her responsibilities. We will never, never win that argument.

But... the way they do it in other countries is talk about the pragmatic aspects. Talk about the MONEY it would cost to stop abortions - all those children to raise, all that welfare and other social services. Talk about all the drug addicted babies that would be born. Talk about farming them out to Fundamentalist Christian families to care for. (Okay, skip that one.) Talk about population control.

Talk more about how abortions have increased under Bush. Can't believe that never got out. Talk about preventing abortions as was eloquently suggested upthread. Use statistics to clearly indicate what has happened elsewhere where countries relied on making abortion illegal. (Abortions went up.)

Talk about all the babies that are killed in fertility clinics. These clinics cater to the middle class white folk and that might wake up one or two. They won't need these clinics anymore, anyway. If we ban those too, then we'll be able to give the drug-addicted children from the inner city who weren't aborted to all the suburban moms who can't get pregnant.

Most of all, talk about the restrictions that already exist. Are the laws federal or state? How late can an abortion be performed? Are there ways to play with these restrictions and still respect a woman's right to choice? What other options are available?

I don't know what Dean had in mind when he mentioned compromising on the abortion issue. Did anyone else read the article?

Thanks all for a great day of energetic idea-generating.

One more thought about abortion - making it illegal will only insure that the rich can still get abortions, and the poor - disproportionately people of color, people with addictions and psychiatric conditions, and new immigrants - will be the only ones having babies that they don't want. Their numbers will go up rapidly while the numbers of middle class Americans will stagnate.

As for abortion being a divisive issue, that may be true - but I am not walking away from either a woman's right to choose or the rights of Gay Americans, for that matter. People's rights are not negotiable, not in The Year Of Our Lord 2005. We're just going to have to find another route to winning this war.

Posted by: Cyrano at January 23, 2005 02:00 AM

That is your right to stay or walk from either. You may be right that people's rights are not negotiable. Do you see that many of our rights have been negotiated away already by this administration? And the biggest issue that gave them the most power was the pro-life movement.
I wonder, would it be appropriate to trade in one right (the right to choose) to gain control of our government back, save thousands of lives, save Social Security, and social programs for many needy people, and save the lives of all who would be effected in the wars to come?

Is there anybody here who thinks we should toss this around a little?

The more I think about it, the more I think we should get busy on a 4-year plan to attack the Rovians on the abortion issue. We need images of heroine addicted mothers with seven kids, all on welfare, and a 30 second interview with one of them about why she couldn't afford to go to Canada to get abortions. I know it's manipulative, but unfortunately that's what works. We have to scare them, just like Rove did with photos (sent to churches for distribution) of abortions being performed. We have to take the idea of overturning RvW to the extreme.

Truth, I think we should toss it around A LOT. We need a major, major frontal assault on this issue. We need some very fine minds at work on strategy for this issue.

And I have a 22 year old daughter, too.

(Although, she does live in Canada...I guess that doesn't really count.)

Amy,

I agree with you. I think we should toss this around and attack it until we come up with a plan.

Hope you have a good evening now it's zzzzzz's
for me.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 23, 2005 02:33 AM

Sorry, but it ain't happening. We didn't lose this election because of abortion. We lost this election because we didn't brutally (I mean that in a literary fashion) take down the knaves that were slandering John Kerry reputation.

We didn't lose by much, and in the states where we lost close races, we likely lost on the gay marriage issue, not abortion. Now, IMHO, gay marriage was premature. We had not prepared the way for that issue. Twenty year of civil unions would make gay marriage seems as natural as butter on warm toast. But, in the current context, it was an incredibly divisive issue. That's why we lost. That, and the campaign's unwillingness to talk about the hundreds of thousands of American men that John Kerry, and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, saved from the ordeal of Vietnam.

"Now, IMHO, gay marriage was premature. We had not prepared the way for that issue. Twenty years of civil unions would make gay marriage seems as natural as butter on warm toast."

I can't express how much I agree with you!! Why do we always have to go all the way to home plate on the first pitch? (Why am I always using sports analogies?!) Baby steps are the way things get done. Equalize all the details first, all the rights to inheritance, visitation, etc, a few at a time, and then when that's old hat, bring up the M word.

And let's never forget, since the campaign refused to tell us, how many men John Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against the War saved from having to go to Vietnam - and be maimed or destroyed, either physically, emotionally or psychically. I was one of those men - and I will never forget.

God bless Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Cyrano, I was watching a movie tonight (The Opposite of Sex) and a middle aged gay man leaned over and twisted the pierced nipple of a gay teen (male) who had harmed him and was now trying to extort money(long story.) The older man twisted hard and the boy screamed, and the man said "I want to hear you say thank you. I want you to be grateful. Do you know what we all went through back when Truman Capote and Liberaci were the only gay men allowed? Have you any idea what we did for you, you little f-----? Now say thank you. I want to hear your gratitude."

I really related. I marched against the war, fought for equal pay, equal rights, reproductive rights, and civil rights. Dammit, I deserve some respect!!

Posted by: Amy at January 23, 2005 02:59 AM

You do deserve respect. I was a bit too young until the very end of the Vietnam War to even understand what was at stake.

As Arthur Miller put it, "Attention must be paid."

Bumper stickers:

Republicans are the party of perpetual war.
Republicans are the party of war and intolerance.
Republicans want a Religious Dictatorship.
Iraq - yet another Republican War.
Republicans and Greed go hand in hand.
Republicans study Mussolini for a reason.

Posted by: Amy at January 23, 2005 02:26 AM

Amy

What is a women's right through Roe vs Wade, is a right to privacy, not a right to choice or an abortion.

I found this last night when I was looking for some info on Marianne Williamson's stance on abortion. For anyone not familiar with Marianne Williamson, she's a well respected spiritual leader in this country and the world.

Doctors, Not Religion, Made Abortion Illegal
in the U.S. Beginning in 1851

"In 1931, contraception was the right- wing inflammatory issue that abortion was to become by the end of the century. Abortion had been legal in the United States until 1851. It was the newly formed American Medical Association, rather than a religious sect, that started the campaign that led to its illegalization. Its zeal had nothing to do with morality or saving the lives of women or fetuses.

It had everything to do with protecting its members, almost all of whom were male graduates from accredited medical schools and had been interns in hospitals. In both sets of institutions, the leaders of the AMA held lucrative positions.

"The AMA's feared competition was a group of skilled female midwives who lacked formal educations but could usually deliver a baby or perform an abortion more adeptly and less expensively than many of its members. The organization could not very well make birth illegal, but it could eliminate a sizable portion of the midwife's income by lobbying Congress to out law abortion.

"Through the years, it would continue to erode the rights of midwives until they all but disappeared while infants, currently almost totally remanded to the expensive care of members of the AMA, had a higher morality rate in the United States than in any other industrialized nation in the world.

"By 1930, the AMA anti-abortion campaign had proven far more effective than would the later Catholic- Christian Right campaign. Margaret Sanger, the nation's leading advocate of birth control, could not admit officially that abortion was a form of birth control- indeed, the leading form- and what she called birth control was more accurately conception control, but that never had the proper public relations ring to it. It sounded almost religious. Birth control! That could grab the attention of a single woman or a mother struggling with more children than she could afford to feed.

A study conducted that year indicated that there were one million abortions performed, which represented 40 percent of all pregnancies. Thirty percent were illegal, and up to 30,000 resulted in the death of the patient. The figures were later adjusted but remained alarmingly high: 700,000 abortions and a conservative estimate of 16,000 deaths.

" Sanger's rationale for disassociating herself from abortion was that the practice of what she termed birth control or pregnancy prevention (again avoiding the use of the word conception) would obviate the need for it. She was trying to raise money for her controversial Birth Control Clinical Re search Bureau during the most difficult of times.

"The last thing she wanted to do was to offend the rich and powerful AMA. When in good conscience ; could no longer overlook the need for safe abortion, it remained impossible for her group to advocate legalization nor could it officially counsel pregnant women who came for help, although unofficial referrals were occasionally made.

"... when the American Woman's Association decided to give an annual award to woman of "eminent attainment," it was agreed that Sanger should be first recipient. Late in November 1931, Eleanor Roosevelt presided at the presented dinner. Franklin was being mentioned as a possible presidential candidate and, for his sake, the bad press she received for advocacy of birth control soon force her to give up her public support of the issue. She never disavowed it; she simply refused to state her position."
-- Pages 421/422 of Ladies and Not- So- Gentle Women

http://www.undelete.org/woa/woa09-01.html

I wonder, would it be appropriate to trade in one right (the right to choose) to gain control of our government back, save thousands of lives, save Social Security, and social programs for many needy people, and save the lives of all who would be effected in the wars to come?

Is there anybody here who thinks we should toss this around a little?

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 23, 2005 02:33 AM

IF we trade the right to choice, more basically a woman's right to privacy, then we trade the right to privacy for all in this country and we set our selves up to be ruled by theocracy not democracy.

We will in effect be giving the Christian right permission to run rough shod on everything they wish to and we may as well prepare ourselves for witch burnings and the like.

Our country was founded on the separation of church and state and though some Christians don't appreciate that, some do as do all who are not Christian in this country.

Yes, we need to re-frame this issue. Yes, abortion should be rare, not frequent, but NO we should not give it up.

The Pro-life people dare to take science as their shield on this issue and they are same damn people who spout friggin creationism over evolution! And many also believe in the death penalty. Eye for eye, maybe?

We have to find a way to frame this as what it is and stop them from framing it elsewise. It's A PRIVACY ISSUE!

Ron Chusid posted a story on LUTD, that has been in the headlines today, if you all have not read it you should:

Survey Finds Church-Going Americans Less Tolerant
23 January 2005

Survey Finds Church-Going Americans Less Tolerant

By Michael Conlon

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Church-going Americans have grown increasingly intolerant in the past four years of politicians making compromises on such hot issues as abortion and gay rights, according to a survey released on Saturday.

At the same time, those polled said they were growing bolder about pushing their beliefs on others -- even at the risk of offending someone.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=256

Posted by: Amy at January 23, 2005 02:35 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You want extreme examples besides the good points you mentioned? I've mentioned all this before....

Overturning Roe v. Wade will make for more death certificates like my maternal grandmother's - here are exact quotes from my genealogy info:

"Death Certificate [name withheld]:
Date of Death: May 26, 1938
Age 35 yrs., 8 mos., 29 days
Cause of Death: Toxic myocardial failure, absorption toximia, blood loss, parturition effort and trauma.
Baby Boy: May 26, 1938
Cause of Death: Toximia of pregnancy of mother, born at term but of 6 months gestation.
* * * * *
...the fetus had died inside of her at the beginning of the third trimester and didn't naturally abort..., and she died as a result of carrying a decomposing fetus in her womb. [Abortion was illegal in 1938 because of laws passed in the late 19th century in America. It never seems to have occurred to the doctor that taking an already dead and decomposing fetus out of a womb could hardly be considered "abortion."]"
* * * * *

When my maternal grandmother died, she did so after three months of crying in mental and emotional anguish because she knew her baby was dead (everyone in the family knew it was dead, and so did the doctor), and the physical pain from the effects of pre-eclampsia (toxemia of pregnancy is an older term). A great-aunt told me about it last summer at a family reunion, and the great aunt was one of the people who sat by my maternal grandmother's bedside trying to console her. At my grandmother's death, there were five living children ages 15 down to two who were left motherless, and the effects of my maternal grandmother's death have carried to third and fourth generations because those five children were left motherless (the youngest one blamed himself when he was older - he thought she died when he was born, but he was two when she died). The published obituary from the newspaper includes the information that surgery was performed the day before her death (it doesn't say what kind of surgery, but I'm assuming Caesarian section - I even heard one gruesome story that the body of the fetus was taken out in pieces because of the decomposition, but I don't know if that's true or not).

Additionally, in the 1970s when I worked in law enforcement, I escorted a very petite little 12-year old girl to a room where she was given a polygraph. She had been babysitting her neighbor's four children, the kids were asleep, she was doing her homework laying on the living room floor and fell asleep. She awoke to having her clothing removed and was raped. Her mother took her to ER and since the girl was mid-cycle gave permission for a shot to stop ovulation (and they were members of a very strict minor religious sect that probably didn't technically allow such things, but the girl was also so physically small that it's doubtful she would have survived giving birth had she become pregnant). The results of the polygraph? She "showed deception" when she said she didn't know who raped her (the polygraphist said since the lights were on in the living room as she was doing her homework she would have seen the guy - she probably kept up the lie because he likely threatened to kill her or her family if she told on him). The likely rapist? The father of the four children she was babysitting for who had a prison record for having raped a young pubescent girl previously. Was he given a polygraph? Nope!!!

When women are allowed to make laws that enforce castration on rapists and child molesters (and that also means clergy who rape children, too!) as a way to keep the DNA of those males out of the gene pool, then it will be okay for men to keep on making laws that keep women perpetual slaves as brood mares. (That's as far as I'm willing to compromise - only when women can make enforceable laws that control male bodies will it be okay for men to make laws that control women's bodies.) Until then, how about repealing the original 19th century abortion laws, repeal any and all laws pertaining to controlling women's bodies after that (and it IS a CONTROL ISSUE for men who want those laws to stay in place - it doesn't have a damned thing to do with "morality" or "values"!). Repeal or invalidate any laws that control women's bodies by law. Period. Women did just fine without laws controlling their bodies like brood mares before those laws were made, thank you very much. Leave the difficult decisions about the life or death of a potential fetus up to a woman if or when that needs to be done; but place emphasis on education and pregnancy prevention as a way to avoid making life or death decisions - birth control is the easy way out of having to face a difficult decision. Men (bad men like the idiot who was just inaugurated) know how to start wars and send people off to be killed by bullets and bombs; they do not value human life after children are born if they can so easily order people in our military to their deaths in an illegal, unjust, immoral, and unethical war - not to mention the children, women, and men in the invaded countries who get in the way of the military's bullets. Birth control, and preventing conception in the first place (wouldn't have to make a difficult decision about abortion, even if rape occurred) would deny idiots like our current "leader" the human fodder for guns for future armies, and there would be no fabricated "issue" about abortion. (Don't know current rates nowadays, but statistically, at one time right after Roe v. Wade was declared legal, very few women had abortions anyway unless a medical issue was involved. Very few women ever use abortion as a method of birth control - and they should have had tubal ligations to prevent the possibility of conception in the first place....)

NO COMPROMISE on reproductive rights for women!!! Period!!! Introduce legislation to repeal and negate any laws that control a woman's body!!! Period!!!

And, for the record, I will never, under any circumstances, vote for any candidate (even a Democrat) who compromises on a woman's right to reproductive freedom and control of her own body. Period. Women are not brood mares like livestock and ought not to be treated as such; it's demeaning and demoralizing and disrespectful to treat a woman like a brainless twit who can't possibly make a responsible decision on her own. And if control freak men don't like the idea of women controlling their own bodies, they can stay out of women's bodies....

Posted by: battlebob at January 23, 2005 12:04 AM
From previous thread

In a nutshell, the Repugs are pro-birth, not pro-life.

Couldn't agree with you more, bb.

Posted by: Amy at January 23, 2005 02:26 AM

This is for Oncall who posted on the last thread his concerns for the future of abortion rights.
We aren't talking about giving in.

Amy,
That unfortunately was exactly what was being discussed. Somebody brought up the idea of dropping it as a federal issue. You rightfully expressed your concerns as to what effect this would have on women in red states.

Even in this thread the question was raised about trading the private right to choose in hopes of getting some victories in other important arenas. I know that Truth Shall Prevail brought this up only as a matter of discussion; however, if we allow ourselves to even consider privacy negotiable, we have already lost.

Posted by: Pamela at January 23, 2005 03:53 AM

I agree with everything you wrote, except the last sentence. I do not see it as PRIMARILY a privacy right, though it is that too. And I most definitely do NOT agree with the idea that was also mentioned to leave it to the states to decide. It would be a cop out sending a 100% wrong message. I do agree though that is very important to somehow deal with the issue, it should not be such a central issue in my view, but it was made into one, and avoiding it means hiding our heads in the sand. Reframing! And maybe not so much reframing the "pro-choice" label (though I do not particularly like it), but rather re-framing the "pro-life" one. It is misleading in almost any conceivable way. It simply means "pro-birth" as many have said, and even worse it implies an "anti-life" label for the opposing view, which is unacceptable.

I am not saying anything really new here, sorry. It might be as simple as changing OUR mindset about this issue, and no longer feeling fidgety and on the defense when it is brought up (and this applies to everybody, from just you or me up the political ladder to a presidential candidate, and no, I am not implying that JK did anything wrong about it, as far as I know he did not). Emphasize that pro-life means so much more, including creating the conditions that would make abortions preventable and no longer necessary in most cases. Emphasize that for most women it is the most agonizing decision they have to make in their whole lifes, and how important it is for as few women as possible to have to face it. But ALSO emphasize that separation of church and state is still a fundamental principle on which this country is based, and that religiois beliefs cannot be the basis for changing the law.

And once again, avoid the appearance that it is an issue that makes democrats uncomfortable and puts them on the defensive. I might be wrong on this, but this is my perception.

I see the abortion issue is still the topic of the day on here. I thought it might be gone after last night's discussions, but it is definitely a "hot button" issue. Yes, we did lose the election because of the abortion issue, in a way, because the abortion issue is probably the one issue that is largest down South, and we managed to lose every single Southern state this election, AGAIN!!!!
It's not productive to criticize anyone because of their Christianity, and I find it very interesting that some posters will criticize Christianity and it's beliefs before they would ever criticize an athiest or a Hindu, for instance. I suppose that's because they honestly believe that the Christian coalition is responsible for the Republicans being in complete control of our government, and that's true, but only to some degree. It's also some of the criticicism of Christianity that comes from SOME democrats that is so polarizing the country against our party, and at some point in time, we need to realize that. I am a Christian myself, and probably have different ideas on abortion than some on here- for instance, I would never vote against requiring parental notification for the performing of an abortion on a minor. This is simply a medical issue to me- if I have to know if my daughter has a root canal, I should also have to know if she has an abortion. And the argument that the dad may have been the one who impregnated the child in the first place is just stupid- in that case, the mom certainly needs to know so she can get her butt to the Sheriff's department and swear out a warrant for her useless husband.
I've never understood that argument at all. Children do not have the same legal rights as adults in our society- it's expected that they are not able to exercise the same judgement as adults- and abortion shouldn't be a different issue than any other with them. That's my opinion, and I'll guarantee you that fighting against parental notification lost our party more votes than it gained them in the election. We need to TRY and be reasonable on this issue- not just say it's a WOMAN's right to choose, no matter what. A 13 year old child is not a WOMAN, by the way. The other abortion issue that helped lose the election is the issue of so called "partial Birth Abortions," and we did not make it clear that most Democrats would prefer that these not happen, and that they should only be done in cases where the health of the mother is concerned. I do believe that's the view of most Democrats, but we need to make it perfectly clear. I think Bill Clinton was able to do that by saying abortions should be "legal but rare." To just say all abortion is a "woman's right to choose" is alienating most Americans and continuing to keep the fascist party in power in this country, and it should be an issue that is open to discussion- not relegated to some inalienable right which, by the way, is not even the case under Roe V Wade after a certain period in the pregnancy.
We've got to figure out why we keep losing and make some rational adjustments. Calling each other names because of our religion is just stupid, honestly.

Linda,

If recent polls can be believed, abortion is simply not that important an issue to religious Americans. Here's a piece on this issue that I did for Dick that never made it on the blog.

****

Environmental Protection Remains a Winning Issue for Democrats and Progressives

There's good news and bad news for Democrats with regard to the latest report from the PEW Charitable Trust. The good news is that a majority of self-identified Religious Americans (55%) support stronger environmental protection, and that this support is consistent across affiliations. The bad news is that the economy and terrorism prevention remain much more important issues for this crucial segment of the electorate (76% and 74%, respectively) according to two separate surveys conducted in the spring and summer of 2004. Consequently, Democratic strength in environmental policy is unlikely to prove decisive so long as job creation appears to be on the rebound, and the party on whose watch 9/11 took place can continue to successfully deflect blame for their failures.

The actual report can be view at:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/pew_religion_environment_1204.pdf

There's another surprising bit of good news buried in the August 2004 segment of the polling data. According to PEW, a substantial majority of this segment of the electorate actually considers environmental protection of greater importance than either gay marriage or abortion (33% and 46%, respectively). And it considers healthcare and education, two other vanguard Democratic issues, significantly more important (70% and 69%, respectively). Hence, there is reason to hope that religious conservatives' inevitable opposition to either abortion or gay rights will not be insurmountable obstacles to the party regaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2006, and the White House in 2008.

Linda Enterkin

Are there more Republicans than Democrats in the south? I don't know. I noticed that most Republicans voted along party lines in all states, and while there are some pro-choice Republicans, alot of them swallow the platform in its entirety.

If alot of voters don't believe in "reproductive rights" then we need to modify our stance? What if alot of voters don't believe in "gay rights" "women's rights" "civil rights"? We turn back the clock? Where will this lead.

Bill Clinton would have been called "wishy washy" or a "flip flopper" if he were running today. He did have a way with euphemisms ("welfare reform" etc.).

You say we lost the election because of abortion, others say because of gay marriage, others say because of foul play in Ohio & Florida & New Mexico, others say because of Hispanic vote, others say because of failure to concentrate on fast growing counties or on single women.

Is there any strategy that is going to work when the people themselves want to head backwards in time?

Amy
I sent you the number & email for the coordinator of the retreat. It would be great to coordinate, as they want to do whole-state outreach anyway.

Cyrano- I'm glad you said that "if recent polls can be believed", because they are as wrong as they can be. Come on down to Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, Virginia, or even the Northern half of Florida where I live, and when you do, ask anyone who voted Republican why they did it, and abortion will be either number one or number two on their list. While you're at it, you might go up to Missouri or South Dakota, and severl other states that we lost in the midwest, and you'll be told the same thing. Abortion isn't a minimal issue in this country- any poll that says it is is NOT polling in the right areas. I'm a native of "down heah." And I'm a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, though I don't attend services anymore. It is a HUGE issue- otherwise, Southerners might just vote in their own interests and vote Democratic.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 23, 2005 11:02 AM

Linda,
Segregation was a once a huge issue down there too-- should we have given in on that?

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 23, 2005 10:43 AM

Linda,

You bring up some excellent points.
As you suggested, there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". That term was the right wing's clever manipulation of what is medically accepted as a late term abortion. I personally have been involved in cases where the mother's life was in danger during the third trimester. I think it interesting that Nancy Reagan and Joe Scarborough, only after facing life's agonizing cruelties, have decided to support stem cell research. I wonder how they, or their supporters, would react if a loved one's life depended on letting a pregnancy go to term?

Actually, I wanted to quote something from Lakoff's book, because we are bandying around the term "reframing" in a way that suggests - if we only had the right words people would get what's at stake - or if only we pointed out that privacy and choice are all protected "rights" under the constitution, that the we would win this discussion. I'm as guilty of this misunderstanding of what needs to be done as others.

In fact, there is much more to reframing - as those who read Lakoff's book "Don't Think of An Elephant" will see. So whether we decide it is better strategy to allow the discussion to shift to the states (not my suggestion - a suggestion that members of the progressive community have put out there) or whether we focus on one aspect of the Abortion/Prochoice issue or another - we need to rethink how we are approaching this discussion and think of how to build a different conceptual framework from the one the conservatives have built around this issue.

DiAnne- I think you probably could guess that had Bill Clinton been allowed to run for president again, and had run in the primaries, I'd have voted for him over John Kerry or even Wes Clark. No, he's not wishy-washy- he's centrist, which is what most of this country is. And there used to be more Democrats in the South than Republicans, but we're quickly being overtaken.
As a mother of 3 children myself, there would have been some point in my pregnancies where I would have no longer considered it my "right" to terminate the life of my unborn child. I can't tell you where that point would have been- whether it would have been the 4th or 5th month of my pregnancy, I really don't know. But I do know that not even Roe V Wade allows free for all abortions during the 3rd trimester, so we really need to understand that an abortion after a fetus is a viable being when there are no medical issues involved at all should be allowed to be questioned. This is where a "woman's right to choose" or a "woman's reproductive right" is the wrong terminology to use, and Democrats need to quit using it. It's keeping us in a lot of trouble- and I do think we need to admit that. Quite frankly, if a woman wants to end a pregnancy for other than health reasons- she should darned well decide before she's 6 months along, and if she can't, maybe there's some reason in her mind why she didn't make that decision. That's my opinion, and I'll bet if it were put on a questionaire, most people would agree with me on it. The problem with our semantics is that most Republicans believe we advocate a woman's absolute right of choice. Maybe you do, but I certainly would not. When a fetus is viable, when it could live on it's own if it were delivered, I cannot argue that anyone has a right to end that life, Unless there are health issues involved with the mother. So I guess I'll just have to disagree with you on that one. I don't see "reproductive rights" as absolute, all the time, and neither does Roe v Wade. I'm quite positive that 3 hours before any of my babies were born, they were living creatures. (Even though I often say Biblical law states they become living souls upon taking that first breath of life.) At SOME point in time, we have to admit that a baby can be a baby while still in the womb, or we're going to keep losing the religious segment of the population. And do I know when that point is- NO. I know a gob of goo isn't a baby, but I know a child just before it exits the birth canal certainly is. Why can't we all just agree on that and quit talking about a mother's absolute right to control her body. At some point, there is another body to consider here.

A former colleague did story & photos on
University of Minnesota Anti-Inaugural protest.
I was also happy to see lots of University of Washington students, both genders, out last night for Roe v Wade candlelight commemoration. They are the same age as those getting killed in the wars.

http://twincities.indymedia.org/newswire/display/19719/index.php

I also think we need to listen to what Linda and Truth are telling us about how this issue is perceived by the Christian community and red states. It's important for us to understand what the different groups we are trying to appeal to believe as we rebuild a conceptual framework around this issue.

A woman's right to choose and an individual's right to privacy - mean very different things to people in red states and people in blue states - whether or not we think they should.

fiona- segregation has nothing to do with abortion. Read my last post- I tried to explain my thoughts better. By the way, gay rights have nothing to do with abortion either. It's just not the same thing. And anyone who thinks all men think of them as brood mares have been hanging around with the wrong men. I also think it's a bit insulting to say that about men, by the way. I've been married to one for 33 years, and he could have cared less whether we had children or not- he always said it was up to me. Ultimately, we made the decision together, and we had 3. And like I said above, at some point in my pregnancy, I could not have considered it my "absolute right" to terminate. Not during the first few months though- I could have done so then without many qualms. I really do think that anyone who has carried a child probably understands what I mean.

Linda

I think abortion & gay marriage were used as wedge issues, to distract from issues like job loss & the senseless war.

If people are truly against abortion and the taking of life, then they should also be against the death penalty and the killing of human beings, especially civilians = including children, infants and even unborn infants in warfare for oil. I don't consider the stance consistent or pro-life based unless it meets these conditions of consistency and I do know Catholics who are pro-life in this way. The ones I know voted for Bush in 2000 because of it but for Kerry in 2004.

When I say pro-choice I am talking about the woman making the decision based on her situation and personal morality. I don't think some of the so-called "pro-life" people care about the fetus - I think it's a smokescreen and they are "anti-choice." One of the new conservative Senators doesn't think there should be gay or single woman teachers! Alot of these people think women on welfare should be forced to be married. & in alot of states a pregnant woman who is being abused can't get a divorce.

This is antiwoman. I don't know what women in the south can be thinking if they take these positions en masse, especially Democrats.

Some of the country is centrist - it's the polar left & right that make all the noise. I think Kerry had to go middle-of-the-road enough as it was. As for Clinton, I voted for him twice, but I would have worked harder for Kerry or Clark because the US needs to start thinking globally in other ways than just trying to dominate the globe militarily and with business.

I guess I need to know more Democrats that live outside the city. I have lived in South Dakota and now I'll be doing outreach & coordination with alot of Dems east of the Cascades so maybe I'll find out but it is very rare for me to meet a Democrat who is not pro-choice. An organizer in my group is from Texas and Georgia so I'll talk to her.

We need to win, we need to coordinate but it really is a broad party, possibly less uniform in belief and values than the Republicans. They have their moderates too but I don't see much that they do to cater to them - they don't seem to need to. Depressing.

Linda,

I'm sure that's what they say, and it may be what they feel. But should the economy go into the toilet, as I'm afraid that it will in next 4-6 years, then those voters will likely not have the luxury of voting their "conscience" on this issue. As those numbers suggest, in the end, the economy will come into play.

That said, there are larger issues at stake here than people's current beliefs; and I'm not clear how this will play out over the next two decades. Here in NY, in the aftermath of the Presidential election, many people were openly talking about the Northeast going its own way - or maybe linking up with Canada. You had TV talking heads like Lawrence O'Donnell talking about secession - on the McLaughlin Group. And if Dubya is successful in repealing the deductibility of State and Local Taxes (which will greatly harm states like NY, MA, NJ and California), you might well see pressure for a divorce increase dramatically.

I've defended the rights of religious people on this blog, but there is such a thing as religions spinning out of control. In truth, the same drift to the right that we are watching here in America is happening in Islam. It's even happening in India, with the Nationalist Hindu Party (forget their name at the moment). At some point, humanity is going to have begin talking a long, hard look at the psychological (and I'd argue psycho-spiritual) dynamics driving Fundamentalism. John talked about this in his American Windsurfer interview. It strikes me that mere accomodation to those dynamics could be very dangerous. IMHO, there is something really scary going on here.

Good Observer article on Our Leader

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1396505,00.html

DiAnne- there are very few moderate Republicans in the South. If you are a moderate in the South, you are generally going to be a Democrat. With the Southern base well in hand, the Republicans really only need to appeal to moderates in order to get the Indy voters who will toss the election into their column, and they certainly seemed able to do that well enough the last two elections. There was an article in the news yesterday about how Wolfowitz has virtually disappeared during the election cycle, and Cheney was even nearly unheard from. Many, many Democrats in this part of the country are like me- I can't say I'm pro-choice, and I can't say I'm pro-life. I'm not on this planet to discern the secrets of when life begins- that's too big a job for me. Most of the Democrats I know down here do think choice should be allowed in the first two trimesters, but not necessarily in the third, which is what the law says already anyway. To them, saying you're pro-choice means you support abortion no matter what stage of the pregnancy a mother might be in, and no matter whether there are health concerns. And quite frankly, except on this blog and on the internet, I've pretty much lived most of my life without meeting ANYONE who actually believed that way. That's what I'm saying about the terminology "pro choice and reproductive RIGHTS." It needs to be changed somehow- you don't have to change what you believe, just your terminology. And by the way, Bill Clinton was pretty successful with his euphemisms, and because of it, he was able to give this country 8 years of peace and prosperity because he was guess what?-- Elected. That's what we have to be before we can accomplish anything else. We just cannot forget that.

Issues based politcs vs. a wholistic politics.

It seems to me that in a close election, there are an infinite number of ways to cut and dice the voters into groups and issues any one of which is a candidate for the deciding factor in the election.

To some extext it is true that when confronted with a question of what a democrat stands for, the answer seems to be in terms of a litany of issues or policies rathen than a clear statement. Yesterdays discussion began with elevator stories but ended on a single polarizing issue. Here we are on abortion again, ultimately drawing into the debate the same old tired positions.

Meanwhile, Bush has become the champion of freedom and democracy against tyrany. Has Rove completely turned the tables on us? The party that has traditionally supported tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Gautemala, San Salvador, etc., is now the party of liberal democracy?

We need to win, we need to coordinate but it really is a broad party, possibly less uniform in belief and values than the Republicans. They have their moderates too but I don't see much that they do to cater to them - they don't seem to need to. Depressing.

Posted by: DiAnne at January 23, 2005 11:30 AM

Lakoff talks about the six different types of progressives and he gives an interest explanation of why Dems/progressives have such a hard time building conceptual frameworks and developing language for their ideas that everyone in the party can agree with. He describes Socioeconomic progressives, Identity politics progressives, Environmentalists, Civil liberties progressives, Spiritual progressives and Antiauthoritarians.

"The problem is that many of the people who have one of these modes of thought do not recognize that theirs is just one special case of something more general and do not see the unity in all types of progressives. They often think that theirs is the only way to be a true progressive. That is sad. It keeps people who share progressive values from coming together. We have to get past that harmful idea. The other side did."

I think we're seeing a bit of that this morning with the discussion about Roe v. Wade - and how to protect the hard won rights this decision protects. This is a very emotional issue and people come at it from different angles, from different perspectives. We need to recognize that whatever our perspective - we are discussing this to figure out how to get our view of a progressive and enlightened society out there in a way that people can accept.

Gotta go. DiAnne- you and I agree on most things, just not this one. I think you know you're just a bit more liberal than I am, and I appreciate the fact that my voice is still heard on here.
bob-in-co- you're right, here we are discussing this stuff again, while Bush is making the country think he's the only candidate who believes in freedom. John Stewart said he used the word liberty in his speech the other day 15 times and freedom 26 times. He knows how to use the language to influence people. We've got to learn that. Blog on, and have a great Sunday.

1) Here we are on abortion again, ultimately drawing into the debate the same old tired positions.

2) Meanwhile, Bush has become the champion of freedom and democracy against tyrany. Has Rove completely turned the tables on us?

Posted by: bob-in-co at January 23, 2005 11:41 AM

I agree totally with both points bob. I can't recommend Lakoff highly enough because he addresses point #1 and he explains what has transpired that got us to point #2. It's fascinating and mindblowing.

Dad, they're staying bad things about me - make them stop!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29417-2005Jan22.html

Linda
I agree with what you wrote.
The new information you gave me is that many Democrats there seem put off by certain terminology that very similar Democrats here do not. That is useful to know.

I also don't think I'm more liberal than you are. I think that how you label yourself has to do with where you live & I live. Your opinions sometimes are not what I'd call moderate. I call them more like sensible & right on.

Resolute

I remember now reading about the different types of progressives. I was an antiauthoritarian, I guess. That's no surprise. Question Authority is my middle name.

Posted by: DiAnne at January 23, 2005 11:53 AM

Personally, I think we missed a real opportunity to defuse the whole "strong father" meme they wrapped Dubya in during the election by showing what a sniveling coward/baby he really is.

- He always seems to turn to his dad to bail him out.
- He depended on his dad's surrogates to lead him and train him over the past four years - he didn't have the ability to learn on his own.
- Mommy and daddy are always around to complain about and criticize all those who criticize their boy.

I'm sure we could think of lots more.

Bush 'Satan salute' shocks Nordics

Associated Press

OSLO, Norway -- President George W. Bush's "Hook 'em, 'Horns" salute got lost in translation in Norway, where shocked people interpreted his family's hand gesture during his inauguration as a salute to Satan.

That's what it means to the Nordics when you throw up the right hand with the index and pinky fingers raised, a gesture popular among heavy-metal groups and their fans in the region.

"Shock greeting from Bush daughter," a headline in the Norwegian Internet newspaper Nettavisen said above a photograph of Bush's daughter Jenna, smiling and showing the sign.

For Texans, the gesture is a sign of love for the University of Texas Longhorns, whose fans are known to shout out "Hook 'em, 'Horns!" at sporting events.

Bush, a former Texas governor, and his family made the sign to greet the Longhorn marching band as it passed during the inaugural parade through Washington during Thursday's festivities, Norway's largest newspaper, Verdens Gang, explained to its readers.
© The Vancouver Sun 2005

US to cut funds to fix Hubble telescope

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=658815

Didn't Bush say he wanted to go to Mars?

Linda, I live in the south and I disagree with your comment that there are few moderate republicans in the south. Moderate republicans helped to vote in democratic mayors in the south (also democratic governors, state legislators, etc.) in November. Also, I apparently know many more very liberal democrats than you do. I think we just gravitate to those who are like us.

The rabid, ultra right wing fundies are a loud bunch in the south, that's for sure. They don't hesistate to speak right up in any group at any time. One gets the impression that all republicans in the south march in lockstep with this group, but I don't think that's true.

Resolute, I completely agree. I never could articulate what I wanted to say about Dubya... his perpetual adolescence...

He was, and is, the stereotype of the irresponsible boomer. The screw up shirker who wrecked his daddy's car... ran businesses into the ground... and even blew off his cush assignment his daddy got for him in the Texas Guard.

And yet... somehow... he was magically transformed into Mr. Good Kid.

Quite a feat, especially compared next to John Kerry. The Real Deal.

As for this discussion, it is as fascinating as the last topic. :-)

Resolute, I can't wait for the Book Chat discussions on Lakoff's "Elephant" book. For a 120 page read, the work is mindblowing and suggests doing much, more than simply changing the words we use.

muse- just passing by again. You may be right about the moderate Republicans in the South, but I live in Northwest Florida, and almost all the Republicans I know are pretty rabid around here. And they're most of our county population. I guess my own experience of realizing I was suddenly more moderate than my party (Yes- confession, I used to be a Republican before 1991) and changing my party to Indy and then to Democrat makes me feel that any Republican worth his salt would have already changed over too. What we've experienced in my area is that a lot of yellow dog Democrats changed over to Republican, not the few moderate Republicans changing over to Democrats as I did. So, you may be right. Anyway- bye again.

Passing this on

Subject: FRONTLINE - Al Qaeda's New Front, Tuesday, Jan. 25 at 9pm on PBS (check local listings)

FRONTLINE
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/

Linda

I know 2 people from your area.

One is my cousin who won't speak to me about politics but did send me a photo of a buff guy wearing only angel wings.

The other is selling out & moving to Canada because he can't stand the mentality, including his own family.

A guy I know in Tallahassee is pretty radical!

Linda,

As a man, I often feel that expressing an opinion on what women should and should not do with regards to reproductive rights is somewhat presumptuous. So I will always defend a woman’s right to determine her own destiny. IMHO, that’s one of the larger issues in play here.

We fought the Civil War over the issue of human freedom, and whether one group had the right to control the destiny of another. When you consider how easy it would be to dramatically reduce the number of abortions – through something like contraception on demand, and expanded access to sex education in the schools – it’s fairly easy for me to argue that abortion rights are extension of that same struggle. The same people who are up in arms against abortion are, by in large, strong opponents of contraception. John Ashcroft actually introduced a bill (not sure if it was in MO or the US Congress) that would have defined life as beginning from conception, and would have made contraception again illegal. That’s as extreme position as you can articulate.

So, in the end, it’s not the Democrats who are articulating extreme positions. It is, rather, these fundamentalist churches, and the always-hostile-to-women’s-freedom Catholic Church (of which I was a member for much of my life) who are articulating the extreme positions – and looking to fundamentally limit human freedom (and, to bring us back to the Declaration – liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

On that note, one ploy we could use in this debate is to bring up contraception on demand as a route for dramatically reducing the abortions every time the abortion issue is raised. By offering a viable, workable alternative to abortion as a primary means of birth control, it is possible that we can paint the pro-birth/anti-life forces as the extremists that they absolutely are. I’m sure that we can come up reasonably accurate projections with regard to the kind of progress that can be made in curtailing abortions. That approach might well be persuasive even in many Southern Red States.

Posted by: muse at January 23, 2005 12:10 PM

Obviously you and Linda have different experiences. It's all good.

I'm glad that Linda feels comfortable sharing her perspective here.

Hey, R and C, log on to msn, okay?

MSN is down on my end.

Okay. PCDoc is giving instructions to IRC chat I was going to pass on. (Like I understood them!) LOL

BTW Cyrano, your statement: "then God help the fool who's going to condemn a woman for making a choice that can only be understood in an eternal framework."

is a KEEPER! :-) Thanks!

Okay, I've got to go to work. Will check in the blog later. Good Sunday, all!

Cyrano

A little biology-based sex education would go a long way too, such as how pregnancy occurs and how HIV is transmitted.

Abstinence-based sex education without the biological component has not been shown to decrease teenage pregnancy or teenage HIV infection.

We are near the bottom for efficacy in linking sex education to positive results.

DiAnne,

We agree. But what if we could argue that having biology-based sex education (even post-high school) AND contraception more-or-less on demand, would reduce abortions by some significant measure by the end of the decade? I think that would completely change the equation on how this issue is framed. We'd be offering a reasonable, easily implemented proposal for dramatically reducing the number of abortions. Banning abortions will take years, be incredibly divisive, and likely lead to Constitutional crisis.

One of my primary concerns with abortion rights being protected on the state level is a woman's right to travel. Could some state decide that it was a crime for a pregnant woman to even travel to another state to get an abortion? If you see abortion as "murder", can you allow someone to travel to another state to participate in a homicide?

Why can't we all just agree on that and quit talking about a mother's absolute right to control her body. At some point, there is another body to consider here.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 23, 2005 11:18 AM

100% agree, as I do with all the points in your post above. And I do not think it has anything to do with being Christian, which I am not. It is just basic respect for life which I think is ingrained in all decent people out there, no matter what their other beliefs might be. I also strongly agree with this other statement you made "This is where a "woman's right to choose" or a "woman's reproductive right" is the wrong terminology to use, and Democrats need to quit using it". Not only does "reproductive right" not sound appropriate for dealing with the ambiguity of when a human being actually becomes one, but it also sounds cold and "soul-less" which is not a good perception to give.

DiAnne:
"I don't think some of the so-called "pro-life" people care about the fetus - I think it's a smokescreen and they are "anti-choice."

What you wrote relates to a point I was trying to make earlier, namely the dislike I have for the pro-life and pro-choice labels. The way you perceive (correctly IMHO) some of them as being "anti-choice" is the flip side of thier "anti-life" descrption. I am sure I read/heard similar things in various places, but I still remember my shock when one of my students told me how her seven year old daughter asked "Mommy, why does Kerry want to kill kids?" The student was even more shocked than I was, good for her. It came up as part of a class discussion about ways parents have at their disposal to control what their children can access on TV and online, and her point was that it is more difficult than the obvious blocking of porno, etc.

Kerry is setting up a shadow presidency? All I've seen him do is go to visit the troops - a little late - and now call for Rumsfeld's resignation - way too late. He's made so many mistakes, I just can't support him again.

Fine Moltar. Next time we will have to win without your support, so be it.Exactly what has JK done this time to not please you. He won the debates, he campaigned his heart out. The way I see it WE failed him not the other way.

I have posted about a local Election Quarrel we have going on here in Texas with Zero help from the DNC. Our legislative candidate Vo won his election over an unpopular Republican Talmage heflin who sits on the state finance committee and his been in our state legislature for 20 years.
Vo won by 32 votes and it is eating the Tom Delay crowd to death b/c we finally won. It is set for our Republican State Legislature to overturn that election later this week.

heflin's attorney just announced what I think is preposterous: he plans on deposing 100 or so Vietnamese voters and making them swear under oath who they voted for and then prove fraud committed by Vo's voters. I am composing a letter to the Houston Chronicle but need to know where in the Consitution etc. it speaks to your vote being private and sacred. Anyone have that language? The idea of being deposed, subject to contempt of court and jail time for refusing to disclose who you voted for to me is unAmerican and turns my stomach. Anyone from Washington State, California etc ever deal with such insanity. Where does it end?

I am with most democrats..... Judge need to stay out of womens issues!!!

Susan:

I prefer Progressive Judges quotation states:
I feel a Federal judge should have a "progressive mind" and MAKE LAWS.

They just make this stuff up. Who in the world as a true progressive wants the Judiciary to " MAKE LAWS". That's called legislating, what conservatives want to do from the bench when they don't get there way.Judges interpret the law not legislate it. They don't believe in the 4th Amendment to the Consitituion so they call it legislating when the Ct. found in the Griswold decision the right to privacy. I still think we need to attack these folks as being against the right of private citizens to purchase or use contraceptives. let's see where conservative men would go with that one. Lets see what college students who I am afraid are apathetic and take Roe v Wade for granted would go with their contraceptives being taken away. We have had this discussion before but we have unfortunately lost the battle when we forgot to tell the right wing that all forms of intercourse are not intended to create children. The right to an abortion grew out of privacy rights under the 4th Amendment which stemmed from young women's rights to have access to contraceptives. I know that you fear that it would turn the argument into using Abortion for birth control,but young women need to understand the direction these folks are headed; to not only end all abortions, but to end all forms of contraception other than the rhythem method and abstenance. Is that what 20 year old women really want? If you college aged women don't stand up like boomers did in 1973 it will be lost.

Exactly what are conservatives asking judges to do in states with parental notifications and by pass laws, other than asking them to Legislate from the bench determining which kids have to tell their parents. They draft those laws so vaguely that judges are forced to legislate their application.
They don't want judges to "legislate" of course unless they are legislating the way conservatives see fit.But this idea of accusing judges of legislating from the bench is an insult to every judge in the country that puts on a robe, including Republican judges.

I think that my theme of preservingthe right to the use of contraceptives and Hilary's speech of moving to end unwanted pregnancies have common components.